Your search
Results 2,086 resources
-
Remoteness of damage in tort is nowadays a largely neglected topic among tort law jurists. Yet why this should be so is perplexing: not just because remoteness rules possess considerable theoretical and practical significance, but also because the law lacks clarity—there being several different tort remoteness rules in operation—and because the theoretical justifications that are frequently offered in support of these various rules fail to withstand rigorous analysis. This article seeks to explore these matters. In particular, it aims to expose the shortcomings of the rationales for the various remoteness rules that we have, and to advocate a way forward that would render the law simpler, clearer and more defensible.
-
The Supreme Court of Canada imported preexisting remoteness rules into Canadian tort law without justifying why they apply in the distinctively Canadian negligence framework endorsed in Cooper v. Hobart. This paper attempts to justify remoteness in this framework. Justifying remoteness as a standalone policy tool is unsatisfactory because it cannot explain why remoteness requires a reasonable foreseeability standard nor that remoteness operates as a fair limit on liability. Justifying remoteness in relation to the duty of care is satisfying. Remoteness supports the duty of care by allowing decision-makers to identify sufficiently general categories of duty of care that apply beyond the individual facts of the case. They can then confirm or deny liability by particularizing the risk at the remoteness stage. This ensures the framework applies as intended, adheres to decision-makers’ sense of justice, and achieves fair and socially useful results.
-
The remoteness enquiry in negligence, which serves to exclude the liability of defendants for harmful consequences that their careless conduct caused, but for which it seems unfair to penalise them, has long been beset by uncertainty. Indeed, a common view is that this area of the law can be explained only by reference to diffuse considerations of 'legal policy'. This paper, however, argues that the remoteness enquiry represents a principled response to a problem that can arise, at a deep level, in ascribing a harmful outcome to the negligent exercise of individual agency. The relevant problem concerns the possible mismatch between the hypothetical 'risk-claim' in virtue of which conduct was faulty and the causal set that subsequently materialised for harm. The 'revised risk theory' that emerges from this analysis accounts for the majority of remoteness determinations. However, a few exceptions are also considered where 'policy', in a restricted sense, operates to extend or curtail a negligent agent's legal responsibility.
-
Jon Nadler, Annual Criminal Law Conference 12F, 2018 CanLIIDocs 10836
-
"This book is the second edition of our essential guide to all of the issues that Indigenous people (both offenders and victims) face in the criminal justice system. Jonathan explores the major inquiries and cases, Gladue Court and reports, sentencing circles, and a host of emerging issues. Major updates are being written for Chapters 2, 5, and 6. Jonathan will be adding a new chapter on Indigenous offenders and Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (FASD)."-- Provided by publisher
Explore
Resource type
- Blog Post (8)
- Book (646)
- Book Section (225)
- Case (257)
- Conference Paper (4)
- Dictionary Entry (84)
- Document (2)
- Encyclopedia Article (2)
- Journal Article (833)
- Magazine Article (2)
- Newspaper Article (2)
- Preprint (3)
- Presentation (1)
- Report (12)
- Thesis (4)
- Web Page (1)
Topics
- Aboriginal law (4)
- Aboriginal peoples (2)
- Abuse of process (5)
- Access to information (1)
- Administrative law (11)
- Admissibility (1)
- Appeals (5)
- Arrest (2)
- Bankruptcy and insolvency (6)
- Banks (1)
- Canada (2)
- Charge to jury (2)
- Charter of Rights (32)
- Child and family services (1)
- Choice of forum (1)
- Civil liability (1)
- Civil procedure (5)
- Communications law (1)
- Constitutional law (56)
- Contracts (3)
- Copyright (8)
- Copyright Pentalogy (5)
- Costs (1)
- Court having jurisdiction (1)
- Courts (8)
- Criminal law (91)
- Crown law (1)
- Custody (4)
- Declaration of invalidity (1)
- Discoverability (1)
- Division of powers (4)
- Elections (1)
- Evidence (17)
- Expropriation (2)
- Extraterritoriality (1)
- Family law (7)
- Fiduciary duty (1)
- Financial institutions (1)
- Fitness to stand trial (1)
- Habeas corpus (1)
- Human rights (1)
- Immigration (3)
- Impaired driving (2)
- Income tax (4)
- Informer privilege (1)
- Infringement (2)
- Insurance (2)
- Intellectual property (9)
- Judicial review (5)
- Jurisdiction (5)
- Labour relations (1)
- Limitation of actions (1)
- Mediation (1)
- Negligence (1)
- Obligation of loyalty (1)
- Obstructing justice (1)
- Occupational health and safety (1)
- Open court principle (1)
- Patents (1)
- Prerogative writs (1)
- Prescription (1)
- Private international law (2)
- Property (2)
- Prosecutorial immunity (1)
- Provincial offences (1)
- Publication bans (1)
- Real property (1)
- Right to security of person (1)
- Sale of goods (1)
- Securities (2)
- Sentencing (9)
- Sex workers (1)
- Sexual assault (6)
- Status of persons (1)
- Statutes (1)
- Taxation (6)
- Telecommunications (1)
- Torts (2)
- Trafficking in persons (1)
- Transportation law (2)
- Treaty rights (1)
- Trial (5)
- Voyeurism (1)
- Young persons (2)
Publication year
-
Between 2000 and 2026
- Between 2000 and 2009 (487)
- Between 2010 and 2019 (785)
- Between 2020 and 2026 (814)